Teable MCP (Official)

call-api-write

Destructive

Create, change or delete data with a POST, PUT, PATCH or DELETE request to the Teable REST API (reference: https://help.teable.ai/en/api-doc/overview): tables, fields, views, automations and anything else search-api finds. Find the method and url template with search-api first; get-doc explains payload formats (formulas, filters, link fields).

Example: call-api-write({ method: "POST", url: "/base/{baseId}/table", params: { baseId: "bseXXX" }, data: { name: "Tasks" } })

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "call-api-write"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	URL path template from search-api results (e.g., "/table/{tableId}/record")
`data`	No	Request body for POST/PUT/PATCH requests, as a JSON object
`method`	Yes	HTTP method from search-api (use call-api-read for GET)
`params`	No	Merged path + query parameters. Path params are split from query params based on the API specification (e.g., { tableId: "tblXXX", take: 10 })

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / data / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +{}
```
- changedInput schema / properties / data / description
```
Previous value: -"Request body for POST/PUT/PATCH requests"New value: +"Request body for POST/PUT/PATCH requests, as a JSON object"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / data / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / data / type
```
Added value: +"object"
```
AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it by naming DELETE and the breadth of affected resources. What's missing is any warning about irreversibility, permission/auth requirements, or rate limits on the live REST API.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the capability statement, then workflow, then a compact example — every sentence earns its place. The inline documentation URL is slightly noisy but serves as a genuine reference for an open-ended API surface.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a generic escape-hatch API caller with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: how to discover the right method/url (search-api) and how to format the body (get-doc). It does not hint at the response shape or error behavior, which are the main remaining gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so path/query merging, the method enum, and the data body are already fully documented in the schema. The worked example is illustrative but adds no semantics beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb set (create, change, delete) mapped to concrete HTTP methods (POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE) against the Teable REST API, and enumerates the resource scope (tables, fields, views, automations). It also implicitly separates itself from call-api-read by scoping to write methods only.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: find the method and url template with search-api first, then use get-doc for payload formats. It also routes GET requests away from this tool, naming the alternative call-api-read in both description and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Teable MCP (Official) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?